Let me take the I-9 further. Until recently, copies of the documents used to complete an I-9 needed to be on file. That is no longer required due to the stolen identification crisis this country is experiencing.

Fairfield CA

Username hidden
(575 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

Regarding Stpete comments on Form I-9: This form is not used for proof of citizenship; it is only proof of your eligibility to work. In this country, you need not be a citizen to be eligible to work. The rest of the comments are on target.

Fairfield CA

Username hidden
(575 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

ok time for a CPA to clear this up:

W-9 collected from a corporation, self-employeed persons or other business entities for the purposes of "backup withholding" not an employee. Corporations x the box that they are "exempt" from "backup withholding". If the entity is not exempt (ie other than a corporation) the form is used to withhold just like taxes withheld from an employee for all renumeration received.

For employees:

Before they can collect a paycheck they complete the following or don't go on the payroll:

Form I-9 which lists 3 columns of "acceptable" identification of US citizenship. Most of the time that consists of thier social security card and drivers license (of which a copy is made and placed in thier employee file). This is the only document for citizenship.

Form W-4 to claim the number of personal exemptions they are claiming for purposes of tax withholding.

That's all that's requested and filed. Without the I-9 and W-4 no worky no pay. The copy of the SS card and drivers license supports the I-9

St Petersburg FL

Username hidden
(989 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

Also law enforcement officers do not have to have probable cause to stop you. Only the standard of "reasonable suspicion" has to be met.

Minden NV

Username hidden
(4041 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

Sorry Angel,

Wrong again. In 2004 Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev., Humboldt Cty. the Supreme Court ruled that a state requiring individuals to identify themselves when asked during investigative stop does not violate their rights.

Minden NV

Username hidden
(4041 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

Sorry Angel,

You are the one not understanding. I know what uniform rule states, but I am wondering if you truly understand it's application; it seems you do not. If you read the hundred's of different case law concerning the the "uniform rule" you will find it does NOT prevent what the community of Hazelton has done. The "uniform rule" addressing that immigration is the responsibility of congress means a state cannot arbitarily make laws without FIRST reviewing and meeting the standards already set forth by congress to all 50 states. Hazelton did NOTHING to interfer with the authority of Congress or the ferderal laws already in place. Arguing about Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution is a mute point and has NOTHING to do with the city of Hazelton.

Being well read does not mean you know what you are talking about or understanding the application of what you are reading. Again, IMO your interpretation is wrong and I will wait to see what happens as this case works it's way to the Supreme Court.

Minden NV

Username hidden
(4041 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

IMO, your reading into something that is not there. 28 U.S.C. § 1251 has NOTHING to do with local or state governments making laws that SUPPORT federal statue. It has to do with what part of government; federal, state, municipality etc. has ORIGINAL authority to write and interpret immigration laws that with apply across all 50 states. If your theory that states, cities etc., have no dog in this fight (no, I am not referring to Michael Vick - lol - yet), then the same thing would apply to federal laws concerning racketeering, interstate commerce, education, etc. Yet, states do supplement those laws as well. As long as a state or lower government does not write a law that IGNORES, REJECTS or INTERFERS with federal guidelines or enforcement they are in their right to make additions or to amplify existing law federal or state.

Even though professionally, I believe your are reading into the statue look at KEY words in the statue. "(b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of:". First, the statue keeps referring to the Supreme Court. IMO, that is where this case will end up and if I were a betting man I will bet that the government of Hazelton will be supported by the Supreme Court. Second, the original or final authority in ALL criminals matters is the Supreme Court. (yes - under law illegal immigration is a criminal matter, even though not enforced like one). Third, the Supreme Court (i.e., Federal Government) has original authority BUT NOT exclusive authority. Hazelton did not make contrary or interfering with federal immigration laws, they made ordinances that attack immigration from the peripheral, namely businesses. Fourth; if I am understanding you correctly 28 U.S.C. § 1251 would make ALL current immigration laws obsolete since they were written by the Congress and NOT the Supreme Court. Again the statue refers to which COURT has jurisdiction NOT who can or can not enforce the laws at the street level nor a state or municipalities right to legislate laws that SUPPORT federal standards. It is much the same on military or federal reservations. In many cases, Bases, Posts, Naval ports or other federal lands do not have one jurisdiction. Prior to closing McClellan AFB in Sacramento is a prefect example. The base had several jurisdictions i.e., exclusive, concurrent, reciprocal etc. However, there was only one enforcement agency, the Air Force Security Police Base Law Enforcement Unit. However, depending on where on base you were arrested or ticketed the "original jurisdiction" for your hearing or prosecution could either be the base commander, a federal magistrate, the county prosecutor, or the city prosecutor.

It will be interesting as the city IMMEDIATELY appealed. It was not automatic as previously stated. I guess we won't know for sure until the appellate court and most likely the Supreme Court hears this case. However, if I were a betting man I would put my money on Hazelton and I am confident enough to let it ride.

Minden NV

Username hidden
(4041 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

well angel,

The goddamn feds should then be responsible to the states to pay to incarcerate these people that committ crimes that shouldn't even be in the country. If the feds won't enforce the laws then it falls to the states and municipalities to protect their citizens.

The govt keeps caving to the mexicans and won't secure our borders... what are we suppose to do, just let the illegals take over?

Lake Worth FL

Username hidden
(7207 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

well angel,

The goddamn feds should then be responsible to the states to pay to incarcerate these people that committ crimes that shouldn't even be in the country. If the feds won't enforce the laws then it falls to the states and municipalities to protect their citizens.

The govt keeps caving to the mexicans and won't secure our borders... what are we suppose to do, just let the illegals take over?

Lake Worth FL

Username hidden
(7207 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

On other thing. States CAN make additions to any federal law, in this case local statues SUPPORTING federal immigration laws. States CANNOT reject or makes laws that are COUNTER or opposite of federal statue.

This site does not contain sexually explicit images as defined in 18 U.S.C. 2256.
Accordingly, neither this site nor the contents contained herein are covered by the record-keeping provisions of 18 USC 2257(a)-(c).
Disclaimer: This website contains adult material. You must be over 18 to enter or 21 where applicable by law.All Members are over 18 years of age.Terms of Use|Privacy Policy